datauser
16th September 2011, 11:04
I think that mp3 has debunked the myth of ac-3 being the best out there and now aac is certainly heading especially Nero to par excellence.
Looking into it from reading on the Net, mp3 still has its uses and aac at 160kbp/s is only slightly marginally better at mp3 160kbp/s in terms of efficiency, but aac at lower bitrates blows mp3's socks off so they say in subjective hearing tests.
Now ac-3 is very good quality no doubt, but are these 2.0 stereo surround tracks any good? I always get confused between the differences between 2.0 surround, or stereo surround. Something to do with the matrix which unfolds in 4 discrete channels using a suitable decoder they tell me. Any way I converted a 5.1 track from an action based movie to mp3 160kbp/s and compared it with the untouched 192kbp/s Dolby stereo surround 2.0 track and the mp3 was vastly superior. People just like to see the Dolby sign on their players and are a bit duped by it still.
The background noise was retained in the mp3 track 2.0 track eg bird singing, cars driving past quickly(not bad at all for a 2.0 surround mp3 downmix) etc, sounds which were clearly retained from the 5.1 mix, but when I played the original Dolby 2.0 stereo surround track through a certified Dolby decoder to compare these noises, the intensity of sound was just not there nor the same background info, obviously as it is not the 5.1 mix, but still very disappointing as I expected some spectral field of unfolding background surround noise. I assumed the extra matrix channels would kick in with the matrixed info at least a little better as Dolby so clearly hypes its prologic algorithmns up? Good old Lame parameters do retain a lot of info at 160kbp/s from 5.1 tracks and appears superior to professionally encoded Dolby 2.0 tracks from same source. I converted the 5.1 to 128kbp/s and it sounded no better than the Dolby original 2.0 track, in fact about the same.
Verdict for me anyway. Mp3 is more efficient than ac-3 at lower bitrates and the cut off point is definitely 160kb/s either joint stereo or normal stereo for good reproduction of info from a 5.1 track downmixed to 2 channels. Just don't expect too much from Dolby 2.0 tracks when comparing it with 5.1 mixes of same source!
What are your experiences?
Looking into it from reading on the Net, mp3 still has its uses and aac at 160kbp/s is only slightly marginally better at mp3 160kbp/s in terms of efficiency, but aac at lower bitrates blows mp3's socks off so they say in subjective hearing tests.
Now ac-3 is very good quality no doubt, but are these 2.0 stereo surround tracks any good? I always get confused between the differences between 2.0 surround, or stereo surround. Something to do with the matrix which unfolds in 4 discrete channels using a suitable decoder they tell me. Any way I converted a 5.1 track from an action based movie to mp3 160kbp/s and compared it with the untouched 192kbp/s Dolby stereo surround 2.0 track and the mp3 was vastly superior. People just like to see the Dolby sign on their players and are a bit duped by it still.
The background noise was retained in the mp3 track 2.0 track eg bird singing, cars driving past quickly(not bad at all for a 2.0 surround mp3 downmix) etc, sounds which were clearly retained from the 5.1 mix, but when I played the original Dolby 2.0 stereo surround track through a certified Dolby decoder to compare these noises, the intensity of sound was just not there nor the same background info, obviously as it is not the 5.1 mix, but still very disappointing as I expected some spectral field of unfolding background surround noise. I assumed the extra matrix channels would kick in with the matrixed info at least a little better as Dolby so clearly hypes its prologic algorithmns up? Good old Lame parameters do retain a lot of info at 160kbp/s from 5.1 tracks and appears superior to professionally encoded Dolby 2.0 tracks from same source. I converted the 5.1 to 128kbp/s and it sounded no better than the Dolby original 2.0 track, in fact about the same.
Verdict for me anyway. Mp3 is more efficient than ac-3 at lower bitrates and the cut off point is definitely 160kb/s either joint stereo or normal stereo for good reproduction of info from a 5.1 track downmixed to 2 channels. Just don't expect too much from Dolby 2.0 tracks when comparing it with 5.1 mixes of same source!
What are your experiences?